Washoe County Animal Control Board – Minutes
September 13, 2011
Page 9 of 9
Washoe County Animal Control Board
MINUTES
Tuesday ~ September 13, 2011 ~ 6:30 P.M.WASHOE COUNTY REGIONAL ANIMAL SERVICES CENTER
CLASSROOM
2825 LONGLEY LANE, RENO, NEVADA /
MEMBERS
Richard Simmonds, ChairElaine Carrick, Vice-chair
Linda Church
Paul B. Davis
Anne Forbes
Kathryn Hass
Dan Olsen
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL (Non-action item)
Chair Simmonds called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Elaine Carrick, Linda Church, Anne Forbes, Dan Olsen and Richard Simmonds.
ABSENT: Paul Davis and Kathy Hass.
Terry Shea – Deputy District Attorney, was also present.
Chair Simmonds outlined the changes to the public comments identified in the preamble of the meeting agenda noting that while the ACB (Animal Control Board) may interact with speakers on specific action items on the meeting agenda, but could not engage in any dialogue during the Public Comments portions of the agenda. Chair Simmonds noted that the Nicole Hartley permit had been withdrawn from tonight meeting agenda.
8. KENNEL PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] – A review, discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a kennel permit to allow Nicole Hartley to keep five (5) dogs at 3465 Zion Lane, Reno, Nevada (City of Reno). [Taken out of agenda order]
Withdrawn.
2. APPROVAL OF JUNE 14, 2011, MINUTES [For possible action]
It was moved by Member Church, seconded by Member Olsen, to approve the June 14, 2011, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried: Members Carrick, Church, Forbes, Olsen and Chair Simmonds assenting; and Members Davis and Hass absent.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-action item)
There were no public comments.
4. UPDATE ON MODIFICATIONS TO THE NEVADA OPEN MEETING LAW (Non-action item) – An informational update on modifications to the Nevada Open Meeting Law (OML) pursuant to AB59 which sets forth duties of the Nevada Attorney General’s Office and AB257.
Terry Shea – Deputy District Attorney, provided an outline of the changes to the Nevada OML (Open Meeting Law) as defined in AB59 and AB257. Mr. Shea explained that there had been several discussions among and between attorneys in the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office to develop a consistent approach in the County’s response to the OML modifications. Mr. Shea then defined the modifications as it pertains to public comment for action, non-action and public comment portions of the meeting agenda. Mr. Shea noted that the intent of the changes to the OML was to provide greater transparency to the public. Mr. Shea pointed out that the modifications also provided an opportunity for a board to combine agenda items or to defer or take no action on any agenda item.
Responding to Chair Simmonds’ inquiry about criminal penalties in the event only a single board member violated the OML, Mr. Shea explained that, in his opinion, the board as a whole would not be subject to any criminal penalties based on a single member’s violation. For example, if a board member were to go form member to member individually without disclosing a conflict or his intent to lobby member individually, then he believes that the only the one member would be subject to any penalty should the AG (Attorney General) find a violation of the OML exists. Mr. Shea then explained that in the event a board is found in violation of the OML, that the board must agendize the violation and receive public comments at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT TIME LIMIT [For possible action] – A review, discussion and possible action to set the length of Public Comment pursuant to AB 257.
Terry Shea – Deputy District Attorney, explained that the board did not have to receive public comment on non-action agenda items. The intent of this particular agenda item is to determine the length of time allowed for public comment. Currently the ACB (Animal Control Board) uses a three (3) minute time limit with the Chair having discretion to extend that timeline as deemed necessary.
‘
Chair Simmonds noted that the ACB’s general procedure was to take staff report, followed by the applicant’s presentation and then comments from the public on specific action items. Typically, the board poses questions to the applicant and/or others providing testimony at the time the testimony is heard.
Mr. Shea opined that the Chair sill has sufficient discretion in allowing the public to provide testimony on action items as well as comments on items not appearing on the regular agenda during the public comment periods at the beginning and end of the meeting. Mr. Shea noted that testimony heard during action items becomes part of the public record and would be considered during a court appearance should an appeal of the board’s decision be filed.
Member Carrick commented that she preferred to allow a maximum of three (3) minutes under public comments while allowing kennel permit applicant’s and others providing testimony an opportunity to speak without a specified time limit.
Hearing no public comments on the agenda item Chair Simmonds asked for board discussion or a motion.
It was moved by member Carrick, seconded by Member Church to limit public comment to three (3) minutes during the public comment portions of the meeting agenda. The motion carried: Members Carrick, Church, Forbes, Olsen and Chair Simmonds assenting; and Members Davis and Hass absent.
Responding to Mr. Shea’s inquiry about whether the time limit applied to for action items as well, Member Carrick clarified that she did not intend for the time limit to apply to applicant or other testimony during for action agenda items.
6. KENNEL PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] – A review, discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a kennel permit to allow Valerie Antonia Perez to keep four (4) dogs at 8467 Sopwith Boulevard, Reno, Nevada (City of Reno).
Field Supervisor Robert A. Smith - Washoe County Regional Animal Services, provided an overview of the kennel permit application noting that the submitted plan meets requirements of Washoe County Code (WCC) and that the request did not endanger public health or safety nor does it violate state or local regulations. The inspection of the subject property indicated that the dogs are well groomed and maintained in a clean and safe environment. Supervisor Smith noted that while the dogs did bark upon arrival of the Animal Control Officer, they quickly became quiet. Supervisor Smith noted that the one complaint had been filed by the property owner of the adjacent property who does not live at that location. Supervisory Smith noted that the number of dogs had been reduced from seven (7) to four (4) and that should additional complaints be received Animal Control will respond accordingly. Supervisor Smith noted that there were four (4) complaints received and that while no feces was present during an inspection there was an odor form an undetermined source present.
Chair Simmonds opened the public hearing.
Valerie Antonia Perez provided a handout to the board (copy on file) and acknowledged that the handout would become part of the public record and not be returned to her. Ms. Perez commented that the dogs were her children and that the animals always stay close to her. Ms. Perez noted that her former boyfriend had taken three (3) of the seven (70 dogs when he moved and that all of the dogs are spayed/neutered. Ms. Perez noted that from time to time he returned with the dogs so that they can all go for a walk. Ms. Perez acknowledged her understanding that by using her home as the kennel that the dogs could not be outside unless supervised by an adult. Ms. Perez noted that her roommate comes home around 11:30 a.m. and that she returned home from work about 5:30 p.m.
Gary Paige owner of the adjacent property explained that he has the property rented to an 82 year old woman and her handicapped son. Since the tenants are home most times they are the ones most affected by the noise. Mr. Paige explained that during several visits to his rental property he observed the dogs outside and that his tenant has complained to him directly about noise. Drawing attention to the 0.15-acre lot size, Mr. Paige explained that the dogs appear to bark and anything and noting and that quite often the feces were not removed from the neighboring property in a timely manner. However, recently, the noise appears to have abated and may be due to the kennel permit application process and the reduction in the number of dogs from seven (7) to four (4).
Chair Simmonds commented that, in his opinion, the issuance of the kennel permit would provide greater level of control over identified issues as the ACB (Animal Control Board) could reopen the matter should there be additional complaints after issuance of the kennel permit and could result in the permit being revoked.
Mr. Paige submitted photographs (copies on file) for the record noting that there are some gaps in the 6-foot cedar fencing that the dogs can see through.
Chair Simmonds closed the public hearing.
Member Forbes stated she could support the permit and suggested that perhaps the applicant should be instructed on the proper use of anti-bark collars. Member Forbes also noted that a reduction by one (1) dog would make little difference in barking.
Member Olsen concurred with Member Forbes and stated he too could support the kennel permit.
Member Carrick pointed out that there were no longer seven (7) dogs present and that she agrees with member Forbes’ that barking would only be minimally diminished by removing one (1) dog. Member Carrick suggested that the gaps in the cedar fencing be covered with tarps or other screening material in a manner that would keep the dogs from seeing through the fence.
Member Church noted that with the issuance of the kennel permit the dogs would have to be supervised by an adult when outside. Therefore she can support the request and suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for Ms. Perez to meet the former boyfriend at a different location to walk the seven (7) dogs.
Chair Simmonds concurred with previous statements and that he believes the kennel permit will provide a means of resolving the issues. Chair Simmonds suggested that the next time Mr. Paige receives a call from his tenant that he call Animal Service’s dispatch to report the incident. Chair Simmonds noted that he also believes that screening the gaps in the cedar fence and more frequent clean-up of feces will address noise and odor concerns. Chair Simmonds explained that there was nothing in existing regulation to prevent a person bringing additional dogs to the property during a visit. Additionally, all of the dogs can be in the yard at the same time provided an adult is present to supervise.
It was moved by Member Carrick, seconded by Member Forbes, to approve the Valerie Antonia Perez kennel permit to keep four (4) dogs at 8467 Sopwith Boulevard, Reno, Nevada (City of Reno Member Carrick stated that she could make the applicable Findings in Washoe County Code 55.420(4) and 55.400(2) based on the testimony provided by Animal Control Officers, the applicant and others. The motion carried: Members Carrick, Church, Forbes, Olsen and Chair Simmonds assenting; and Members Davis and Hass absent.
7. KENNEL PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] – A review, discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a kennel permit to allow Tabitha Wilkins to keep four (4) dogs at 1240 East Huffaker Lane, Reno, Nevada (City of Reno).
Field Supervisor Robert A. Smith - Washoe County Regional Animal Services, outlined the request to keep four dogs consisting of two (2) standard Poodles. Supervisor Smith explained that that the health/safety would not be endangered and that the premises, upon inspection, appeared to be clean and sanitary. The intent is to use the home as the kennel, thus requiring that the four (4) dogs are kept indoors unless accompanied by an adult when outside. Supervisor Smith noted the past history of three (3) complaints, including at-large and noise. The inspection also indicated that all the dogs were in good condition. Supervisor Smith noted that the dogs had been kept in the outdoor kennel and that it is unclear when the dogs were moved into the home.
Chair Simmonds opened the public hearing.
Tabitha Wilkins provided a handout (copy on file) which includes letter(s) from other neighbors in support of the kennel permit as well as her landlord. Ms. Wilkins stated that the dogs are with here at all times. Currently she cleans the yard of feces on a daily basis and has also taken to using detergent when watering the area to keep the odor down. Ms. Wilkins noted that she does do some dog sitting from time to time and provides grooming to a co-worker of her spouse. s. Wilkins described an incident when the fence had been toppled by high winds and had taken some time to repair. Ms. Wilkins explained that she had contacted the landlord immediately about the damaged fence. Due to the high number of claims for fencing the fence was repaired at her expense without seeking assistance from the neighbors. Ms. Wilkins noted that she has a heated and air conditioned area in the garage for three (3) of the dogs with the fourth dog remaining in the house when she is not present. Ms. Wilkins stated that she respects the neighbors and tries to get along with them. Ms. Wilkins explained that the females are not spayed as she breeds the dogs from time to time as a hobby, but would consider spaying the females. Ms. Wilkins then pointed out that a hiking trail is located adjacent to the property and that a double fence has been installed to help keep the dogs away from the perimeter fencing. Ms. Wilkins then explained that she has, from time to time, a total of perhaps seven (7) dogs on the premises However, only four (4) of the dogs are hers. Ms. Wilkins commented that once she was made aware of the regulation of having someone present when the dogs are outside, she then started escorting the dogs when they are outside.